United States v. LaGrou Distribution Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the Seventh Circuit has repeatedly held that restitution is not a criminal penalty, but a “classic civil remedy”
• describing restitution as a “‘classic civil remedy’” administered in the criminal context (quoting United States v. Behrman, 235 F.3d 1049, 1054 (7th Cir. 2000))
• affirming imposition of maximum $500,000 fines for each of two counts
• “‘[R]estitution for harm done is a classic civil remedy’ that is administered for convenience by the courts that have entered criminal convictions.”
• “We reiterate: restitution is not a penalty for a crime for Apprendi purposes since restitution for harm done is a classic civil remedy that is administered for convenience by the courts that have entered criminal convictions.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “We reiterate: restitution is not a penalty for a crime for Apprendi purposes since restitution for harm done is a classic civil remedy that is administered for convenience by the courts that have entered criminal convictions.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).